Another Petition Against CRT

[cuthound]

If the riparian rights were transferred to BW in the 1968 Act, then I'd say their petition is approximately 47 years too late.

[Graham Davis]

It is all codswallop........

 

( I like the word codswallop...perhaps it is a word that Henry II would recognise)

 

Mid 20th Century according to the OED:

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/what-is-the-origin-of-the-word-codswallop

[jenlyn]

If the riparian rights were transferred to BW in the 1968 Act, then I'd say their petition is approximately 47 years too late.

I seem to remember nigel moore making reference to something similar, and along the lines of this issue a while back.

Something about BW questionably acquiring such rights.

[Tony Dunkley]

If the riparian rights were transferred to BW in the 1968 Act, then I'd say their petition is approximately 47 years too late.

 

Riparian rights are something only land owners have. The 1968 Act didn't transfer anything of the sort to BW, but it did abolish the Public Right of Navigation on canals.

[dmr]

Yeah....River Navigation free of charge, but CaRT charge whatever they want for use of the Locks Cuts!

 

I really liked 38 degrees etc when they started but they are now used far too much by nutters and mischief makers.to the detriment of the important battles.

More seriously they suffer because they only ever present one side of the story, and a biassed view at that.

 

..............Dave

[MartinC]

Hopefuly 38 degrees are getting to the point where they will implode. Their petitions get more and more stupid, but, of course, any publicity is good publicity!

 

Check out their site:

 

"38 Degrees keeps costs low by maintaining a small staff" Total staff and office costs last year just short of £900,000 out of £2.5m

 

Corporation Tax paid £575 because virtually all the income is donated.

 

"2.5 million 38 Degrees members across the UK."

"The only requirement of membership is to take an action, as simple as signing a petition, or attending an event"

[cuthound]

Riparian rights are something only land owners have. The 1968 Act didn't transfer anything of the sort to BW, but it did abolish the Public Right of Navigation on canals.

Just quoting from the 38 Degrees petition they are the ones saying the 1968 Act transferred them to BW.

[churchward]

Thanks John. I will not be signing. There is too much pretend legalese in there. I shudder to imagine how many other Acts of Henry II (or any other ancient monarchs, for that matter) have fallen into disuse but never been repealed.

I won't be signing either.

 

Acts of parliament do not have to be repealed if a subsequent act is put into law that supersedes it. The newer act will take precedence.

 

I don't know how subsequent acts have changed the acts quoted but I rather suspect it is not as clear as they suggest.

 

Rather like the oft quoted myth that in Hereford you can shoot Welsh people with a bow and arrow as a very old local law has not been repealed. It does not have to be as subsequent laws governing illegal killing over ride any earlier acts. If you did such a thing you will still be found guilty of murder with the appropriate evidence of course.

[NigelMoore]

I seem to remember nigel moore making reference to something similar, and along the lines of this issue a while back.

Something about BW questionably acquiring such rights.

 

OK, so now I have to clear my name with some specifics.

 

CaRT have jurisdiction over some 250 miles of river navigations.

 

All of those retain their Public Rights of Navigation [PRN], regardless of improvements, straightening with short cuts, locks, etc, etc.

 

The PRN is entirely separate from the issues of riparian rights, although PRN’s may take on an extra dimension for riparian owners in some circumstances.

 

The 1968 Transport Act has absolutely nothing to do with transferring riparian rights over rivers to BW. It likewise has absolutely nothing to do with abolishing PRN’s over those rivers. Neither have any other Acts, private or public, affected the riparian rights of either canals or rivers – indeed, to the contrary, the 1995 Act took the trouble to confirm that they were retained, so that exercise of limited powers to control mooring structures had to take them into account.

 

Neither the 1962 nor the 1968 Transport Acts entitled BW to say who could or could not navigate the rivers, nor did either of them grant any power to levy charges for that use, nor did either of them grant any power to set conditions upon boats entering onto, using, and being kept on those rivers.

 

The power to demand boat registration, at a charge, for use of the main navigable channel of the rivers arises from the 1971 BW Act, which amended the PRN to that limited extent. There was no impact upon riparian rights, and the PRN was not abolished.

 

The power to add further conditions upon issue of the river registration certificates – in the form of the BSSC, and insurance, and the ludicrous and troublesome s.17(3)( c ) – was the final burden upon river users imposed by the 1995 Act.

 

There exist only 2 avenues still open for CaRT to affect the rights of riparian owners in a strictly limited way.

 

They could impose the requirement to obtain a ‘safety certificate’ for structures built into the waterway [whether in, on, under or over] – but only in sections which have been designated for that express purpose by the Board. No such sections ever have been so designated, and it is doubtful they will ever bother, because they cannot charge for that certificate.

 

The other avenue for affecting riparian owners would again require precursory action, in asking for the Secretary of State’s approval for the drafting of a map for lengths of the rivers, in order to more clearly define the main navigable channel of that length.

 

Conceivably, some sections could end up delineating the main navigable channel to include so much of the riparian property as to make the registration requirement compulsory. How this would work, I don’t know. Clearly, the authority itself cannot be enabled to unilaterally declare what that might be, else the provision was otiose – so there would have to be some impartial expertise invoked in the process.

 

Any comment I made earlier in any way relating to this topic would have been on the issue of the very recent tranche of Land Registry applications. I know they fraudulently registered rivers in London, but I don't know of any applications to do with rivers further afield. Aside from the corruption aspect of this, unless they somehow acquired bankside as well, it could legally do them little if any good; the ownership of the bed could have no effect upon the right of navigation, nor upon the riparian rights [though they could and would argue that it did].

 

A final point in this generalised posting – no-one owns the water, not the riparian owner, nor CaRT nor any other; it is public.

[mark99]

 

 

A final point in this generalised posting – no-one owns the water, not the riparian owner, nor CaRT nor any other; it is public.

 

Yes agreed - but the water is managed by appointed risk management bodies to ensure the <free> water does not harm society via flooding etc. In fact there are Common Laws too giving rights to Commoners - like a right to riparians to have unpolluted water in water courses.

 

A bit like air is free but airspace is managed.

 

Quite a good petition but poorly named. Should be renamed an idiots petition. Support affirming the status of the signer.

Edited March 6, 2015 by mark99

[NigelMoore]

 

Yes agreed - but the water is managed by . . .

 

Yes indeed - management of and use of the water is subject to innumerable individual rights and statutory undertaker obligations, as Magpie Patrick noted.

[NigelMoore]

How many non-canalised rivers are CRT actually responsible for? Trent (possibly?) help me out here because I'm struggling to think of many others.

 

Canalisation makes no difference whatsoever to the status of the rivers. There are some 250 or more miles of them within CaRT's jurisdiction, as I noted previously. Such of those as fall under the 1971 legislation are listed in Schedule 1 of that Act:

 

The river Avon from the tail of Hanham Lock to the tail of the bottom lock at Bath.

The Fossdyke Navigation

The River Lee Navigation from Hertford to the river Thames at Limehouse and to the tail of Bow Locks.

The river Severn from Stourport to its junction with the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal at Gloucester

The River Soar Navigation from its junction with the river Trent to Leicester

The River Stort Navigation

The Trent Navigation from the tail of Meadow Lan Lock, Nottingham, to Gainsborough Bridge

The River Ure Navigation from Ripon to Swale Nab

The Weaver Navigation from Winsford Bridge to its junction with the Manchester Ship Canal at Marsh Lock and at Delamere Dock

The Witham Navigation from Lincoln to Boston

 

In 1974 further sections were added to the registration requirement:

 

The Trent Navigation from Shardlow to the tail of Meadow Lane Lock, Nottingham, by way of the Beeston Canal and part of the Nottingham Canal and including the branch to the river Soar and the length of the river Trent from its junction with the Nottingham Canal to Beeston Weir.

 

And finally in 1995:

 

The river Weaver from Winsford Bridge to Shrew Bridge in the County of Cheshire.

 

All other rivers remain outside of the registration requirement.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

Canalisation makes no difference whatsoever to the status of the rivers. There are some 250 or more miles of them within CaRT's jurisdiction, as I noted previously. Such of those as fall under the 1971 legislation are listed in Schedule 1 of that Act:

 

The river Avon from the tail of Hanham Lock to the tail of the bottom lock at Bath.

The Fossdyke Navigation

The River Lee Navigation from Hertford to the river Thames at Limehouse and to the tail of Bow Locks.

The river Severn from Stourport to its junction with the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal at Gloucester

The River Soar Navigation from its junction with the river Trent to Leicester

The River Stort Navigation

The Trent Navigation from the tail of Meadow Lan Lock, Nottingham, to Gainsborough Bridge

The River Ure Navigation from Ripon to Swale Nab

The Weaver Navigation from Winsford Bridge to its junction with the Manchester Ship Canal at Marsh Lock and at Delamere Dock

The Witham Navigation from Lincoln to Boston

 

In 1974 further sections were added to the registration requirement:

 

The Trent Navigation from Shardlow to the tail of Meadow Lane Lock, Nottingham, by way of the Beeston Canal and part of the Nottingham Canal and including the branch to the river Soar and the length of the river Trent from its junction with the Nottingham Canal to Beeston Weir.

 

And finally in 1995:

 

The river Weaver from Winsford Bridge to Shrew Bridge in the County of Cheshire.

 

All other rivers remain outside of the registration requirement.

Thanks for the assistance on that one, so it appears that CRT jurisdiction over rivers covers about 10% of its holding or put differently 90% of its holding has nothing whatsover to do with this infantile petition (not criticising you, just the petition!). So if they want to run such a stupid petition perhaps they should aim it at the Environment Agency who, I am sure, have significantly more responsibility for rivers than CRT could ever hope to have,

[NigelMoore]

perhaps they should aim it at the Environment Agency who, I am sure, have significantly more responsibility for rivers than CRT could ever hope to have,

 

You are right, they do, and in some places the areas of responsibility overlap. The EA legislation on boats is also explicitly more embracing than BW’s. Whereas the registration requirement on CaRT rivers only extends to the main navigable channel, the Anglian Waterways Act, for example, specifically demands such registration and annual fee for boats on all connected waters even if they are entirely yours.

 

Up until 2010 the upper Thames was in the same position as the Scheduled BW rivers [the BW legislation was modelled on the Thames Conservancy Acts], so that boats could be moored to the banks, and provided they never used the river they could remain unregistered.

 

But now, since the Inland Waterways Statutory Instrument of 2010, all EA waters require boats that are merely kept on the river even if not using it, to be fully paid up certificate holders. Caused quite a furore while that all got sorted out.